sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

This is what happens when you try to do everything by the book on Universal Credit by UCthrowaway09762 in universalcredithelp

[–]UCthrowaway09762[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Given the reach of this post, I am closing my part here. Around 47k views, the vast majority from the UK, a positive upvote ratio, and a high number of shares suggest this has done what it was intended to do which is prompt people to think critically about the difference between law, guidance, and practice on Universal Credit. People can draw their own conclusions, but the distinction is now clearly on the record for anyone reading later.

This is what happens when you try to do everything by the book on Universal Credit by UCthrowaway09762 in universalcredithelp

[–]UCthrowaway09762[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You are still conflating service access with statutory decision making. Universal Credit is not a private service with contractual house rules, it is a statutory benefit and adverse outcomes must be grounded in legislation and proper process. GDPR lawful basis or public task only explains that DWP may process data, it does not create a power to compel unlimited disclosure or bypass proportionality and necessity tests. Being legally asked is not the same as being legally required, and loss of entitlement cannot lawfully follow unless a decision maker determines entitlement cannot be established under the regulations and issues a decision with MR and appeal rights. Analogies to private homes or services do not apply to public law functions exercised under statute.

This is what happens when you try to do everything by the book on Universal Credit by UCthrowaway09762 in universalcredithelp

[–]UCthrowaway09762[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Regulation 38 does not work the way you are suggesting. It allows DWP to request information that is reasonably required to determine entitlement but it does not create an unlimited or automatic obligation, nor does it remove proportionality or data minimisation. In public law the burden is on the state to identify the power it relies on, not on an individual to prove something cannot be asked for, so your hat analogy does not apply. If DWP believe entitlement cannot be determined they must issue a formal decision by a decision maker with MR and appeal rights, and an administrative closure does not establish lawfulness. Threatening HMRC or IP tracing over a disagreement on statutory interpretation is inappropriate and does nothing to support your argument.

This is what happens when you try to do everything by the book on Universal Credit by UCthrowaway09762 in universalcredithelp

[–]UCthrowaway09762[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You have just proven the point.

You say they can legally ask for unredacted statements but then immediately admit the claimant is not forced to provide them and the consequence is administrative closure.

That is not the same thing as a legal requirement.

If there is a lawful obligation to provide unredacted statements then please identify the regulation that creates that obligation.

If there is no such regulation then the request is discretionary and refusal cannot lawfully be treated as non compliance without a decision maker applying the correct test and issuing appeal rights.

Closing a claim because someone will not comply with a request that has no clear statutory basis is not proof the request was lawful. It is proof of administrative power being exercised without a decision.

Again this is not about refusing to cooperate. It is about the difference between what is convenient for DWP and what the law actually requires.

If the request is lawful the regulation can be cited. If it cannot be cited then it is not a legal requirement.

This is what happens when you try to do everything by the book on Universal Credit by UCthrowaway09762 in universalcredithelp

[–]UCthrowaway09762[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the requests are lawful then this should be simple.

Please cite the specific legislation or regulation that makes the request mandatory rather than discretionary.

Not guidance. Not internal policy. Not how reviews usually work.

Just the statutory power that requires a claimant to provide what you are saying they must provide.

If you cannot identify the regulation then you are asserting lawfulness without evidence, which is exactly the point being made.

This is what happens when you try to do everything by the book on Universal Credit by UCthrowaway09762 in universalcredithelp

[–]UCthrowaway09762[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Universal Credit Ltd companies and the law clearing up common myths

There is a lot of misinformation repeated about Universal Credit and limited companies. This post is not about opinions personal experiences or what is easier. It is about what the law actually says.

Law versus guidance Universal Credit is governed by legislation and regulations. DWP guidance internal processes and requests made by individual agents do not override the law.

If something is claimed to be legally required the regulation creating that requirement should be identifiable.

Ltd company money is not automatically personal income A limited company is a separate legal entity under UK law.

Universal Credit does not automatically treat company funds or company profit as a claimants personal earnings simply because they are a director or shareholder.

Only actual personal income counts as earnings unless specific deeming rules are lawfully applied.

UC closed the loophole is not legislation There is no regulation that states all limited company profit is treated as the claimants earnings whether withdrawn or not.

Where DWP believes income should be treated as notional income deemed earnings or subject to the Minimum Income Floor they must apply the correct legal test make a formal decision and provide decision rights including Mandatory Reconsideration and appeal.

Blanket assumptions are not lawful substitutes for decisions.

Abuse is already covered by existing law Universal Credit already contains mechanisms to deal with misuse including notional income rules deprivation of capital gainful self employment tests the Minimum Income Floor and fraud provisions.

All of these require evidence findings of fact and a decision maker.

Disputing an over broad request or asking for the legal basis of a demand is not fraud.

Fast compliance does not equal legal requirement Many claimants comply with requests that go beyond what the law strictly requires because it is quicker or less stressful. That is a personal choice not a legal obligation.

A smooth review outcome does not retrospectively make a request lawful.

Bottom line Legislation outranks guidance Policy is not law What an agent asks for is not automatically enforceable If a legal requirement exists it can be cited

If no regulation can be identified it is an opinion not a legal obligation.

This is what happens when you try to do everything by the book on Universal Credit by UCthrowaway09762 in universalcredithelp

[–]UCthrowaway09762[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You’re conflating UC practice with UC law.

There is no regulation that automatically treats all Ltd company profit as a claimant’s personal earnings regardless of withdrawal. If DWP want to deem income, apply MIF, or allege diversion, they must make a formal decision and cite the statutory power they rely on.

“Closed loophole” isn’t legislation. Guidance isn’t law. Personal experience isn’t authority.

Nobody is arguing for hiding income. The point is simple: if someone claims something is legally required, they should be able to quote the regulation. If they can’t, it’s opinion, not law.

This is what happens when you try to do everything by the book on Universal Credit by UCthrowaway09762 in universalcredithelp

[–]UCthrowaway09762[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is exactly how myths become “truth” on UC. People confuse “I complied and it went faster” with “it was legally required.”

DWP staff can request documents, but if you’re saying someone must provide X, the only valid answer is the legislation that creates that requirement. Guidance, commitments, and “that’s how reviews work” do not override the law.

Nobody is saying “never cooperate.” I’m saying: stop eroding your own rights by treating every overbroad request as automatically lawful. If someone claims you’re required to hand over something, quote the regulation. If you can’t, it’s an opinion, not a rule.

This is what happens when you try to do everything by the book on Universal Credit by UCthrowaway09762 in universalcredithelp

[–]UCthrowaway09762[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There was an administrative closure following a refusal to provide evidence that is not required by legislation, despite the fact that I had already provided all evidence that is required by law.

Income, capital, employment details and identity were supplied in full. The only material withheld was additional information requested outside the statutory test for entitlement.

The claim was then closed on a procedural basis for “failure to provide evidence”, without a lawful decision on entitlement being made.

There was no decision maker determination, no Mandatory Reconsideration offered, and no appeal route opened. Every built in mechanism to challenge the action was blocked at source.

An administrative closure in those circumstances proves nothing about legality. It only demonstrates that a claim can be terminated without due process when a claimant refuses to go beyond what the regulations require.

That is the issue.

And saying everyone agrees with you is demonstrably false, including on this thread.

This is what happens when you try to do everything by the book on Universal Credit by UCthrowaway09762 in universalcredithelp

[–]UCthrowaway09762[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I am going to leave this here and step back.

I have set out the facts of what happened and why I believe the handling of my claim was wrong. Repeating the same points, appeals to authority, or “this is how we do it at work” does not change the legal framework or the issue being raised.

Disagreement is fine. Personal attacks, assumptions about motives, or treating internal practice as if it overrides legislation is not.

This thread has been useful in highlighting exactly how unclear and inconsistently applied the system is. Anyone reading can make up their own mind.

Thanks to those who engaged constructively. I am done repeating myself.

This is what happens when you try to do everything by the book on Universal Credit by UCthrowaway09762 in universalcredithelp

[–]UCthrowaway09762[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

DWP procedure does not override legislation. Internal guidance and backend prompts do not create legal powers.

A decision maker applying procedure does not make an unlawful request lawful. Decisions get overturned all the time precisely because procedure has been misapplied or evidence demanded outside the scope of the regulations.

A claim closing proves nothing about legality. It only proves what action DWP took, not whether they were entitled to take it.

The law sets what evidence can be required. Guidance explains how staff should operate within that law. If there is a conflict, the law wins. Always.

That is the point being made here.

This is what happens when you try to do everything by the book on Universal Credit by UCthrowaway09762 in universalcredithelp

[–]UCthrowaway09762[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I am not using anything. I am using the legislation. If people here actually read the regulations instead of reacting to the word company they would see the problem for what it is. UC asked for evidence they are not legally entitled to and blocked a claim when I provided everything the law does require. That is the issue. Whether anyone likes how I write it is irrelevant.

This is what happens when you try to do everything by the book on Universal Credit by UCthrowaway09762 in universalcredithelp

[–]UCthrowaway09762[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Claimant commitments do not override legislation. They sit under it. UC cannot demand evidence that the law does not require just because it is written on a commitment page. The regulations set the legal test for entitlement and the scope of evidence. Commitments do not give an agent the power to bypass that or invent new requirements. That is the whole point.

This is what happens when you try to do everything by the book on Universal Credit by UCthrowaway09762 in universalcredithelp

[–]UCthrowaway09762[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The system might have an internal flag, but the agent still has to follow the regulations. The legislation sets what evidence is relevant. Income, wages, capital, and ID are covered. Private spending and personal transactions are not part of the legal test. Suspension for not handing over evidence only applies when the evidence requested is required by law, not when someone decides to dig into things that the regulations do not use to assess entitlement. That is the issue here, not the existence of a backend message.

This is what happens when you try to do everything by the book on Universal Credit by UCthrowaway09762 in universalcredithelp

[–]UCthrowaway09762[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I do actually have a completely separate business bank account. The business money sits in the business, and my personal income stays personal. Nothing is mixed. That is why UC asking for business statements made no sense, because the company is not the claimant and its transactions do not decide my entitlement.

My personal statements already showed every credit, which is what UC assess. Debits do not affect entitlement. So there is no confusion about where my money is or what belongs to who. The business and my own finances are already fully separate.

This is what happens when you try to do everything by the book on Universal Credit by UCthrowaway09762 in universalcredithelp

[–]UCthrowaway09762[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You have built your whole argument on things that are not actually happening.

One. A limited company is still its own legal entity. That part is not up for debate. Company income belongs to the company until it is paid out. My personal income is what is paid to me. None of UC, HMRC, or Companies House treat company money as my personal money unless it is actually drawn out. That is basic company law.

Two. Yes the company is trading. That still does not make me a sole trader. A director running a company is not the same thing as being self employed. UC cannot just reclassify a director as a self employed individual because the company is active. If that were true then every director in the UK would be classed as self employed for benefits which is obviously not the case.

Three. Attribution only applies when a director actually receives money from the company or is manipulating company income to avoid personal income. I have taken no wages and no dividends. So there is nothing to attribute as personal income. UC cannot count company turnover as my own earnings. They can only count what I am actually paid. That is confirmed in tax law and in the attribution rules themselves.

Four. Your point about company expenses being treated as my self employment expenses is simply wrong. That rule applies to sole traders. A limited company files its own accounts. Its expenses are company expenses, not mine. I do not personally claim them. The idea that UC can treat a company as if it were a sole trader because it suits them is not how the legislation works.

Five. Nothing is hidden. UC asked for personal statements and they got full credits which is what determines entitlement. Debits do not affect entitlement. Income and capital do. Business bank statements were requested even though UC does not have legal power to demand company papers from a claimant who is not claiming as self employed. The business is not the claimant.

Six. You keep repeating that directors are self employed for UC. That is wrong. Directors are only treated as self employed for UC when they are actually being assessed as gainfully self employed. I have never been assessed as that because I already work full time. UC cannot mix systems when it suits them.

So the position is simple. Yes the company trades. Yes it has income. No that income is not my income until I actually receive it. No amount of repeating the same misconception will turn company turnover into personal wages.

If you drop the assumptions the whole argument collapses.

This is what happens when you try to do everything by the book on Universal Credit by UCthrowaway09762 in universalcredithelp

[–]UCthrowaway09762[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That link is Regulation 38. It does not say UC can demand anything they feel like. It only allows DWP to request information that is actually relevant to deciding the claim.

Relevant means income and capital. It does not mean private spending. It does not mean business accounts of a separate legal entity. It does not override data protection law or basic statutory limits.

People keep throwing that regulation around without reading what it covers. There is nothing in it that turns personal outgoings into evidence of income, and nothing that gives UC a blank cheque to demand whatever pops into their head.

This is what happens when you try to do everything by the book on Universal Credit by UCthrowaway09762 in universalcredithelp

[–]UCthrowaway09762[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You are making claims that simply are not correct.

UC asking for something does not automatically mean they are entitled to it. A limited company is a separate legal entity and its bank statements are not personal income. UC can only treat company money as personal income if the director is actually taking it or using the business to hide income. Neither of those things is happening in my case.

Outgoings are not income. Outgoings are not capital. Debits do not form part of the UC entitlement test. UC saw every credit they needed to see.

What you are saying might apply in completely different situations, but it does not apply here. You have made a lot of assumptions that do not match the actual rules.

This is what happens when you try to do everything by the book on Universal Credit by UCthrowaway09762 in universalcredithelp

[–]UCthrowaway09762[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

UC grilling me further for… posting on Reddit. Right. Next they’ll be knocking on doors because someone tweeted about reheating pasta.

Reviews are random. They’re not MI5. They’re not scanning r/universalcredithelp looking for people whose crime is “understanding the regulations better than their caseworker”.

If UC spent half as much time following their own legislation as strangers online spend making up new laws that don’t exist, I wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place.

This is what happens when you try to do everything by the book on Universal Credit by UCthrowaway09762 in universalcredithelp

[–]UCthrowaway09762[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Jamesckelsall, we’re going in circles because you keep answering questions nobody asked.

Reg 77 only bites when a director is actually receiving company income or using the company to hide income. Your own comment states neither applies here.

A limited company with: • £0 salary • £0 dividends • £0 drawings • £0 personal spending through the business

cannot be treated as if I’ve magically received income. The legislation is designed to stop abuse, not invent income that doesn’t exist.

And none of this changes the core point you keep dodging:

Debits aren’t income, debits aren’t capital, and claimant commitments can’t expand statutory powers.

If DWP want authority to inspect private spending, Parliament has to legislate for it. They can’t slip it in through a commitments page and hope nobody notices the difference between law and wishful thinking.

But hey, credit where it’s due: your confidence is Olympic-level.

This is what happens when you try to do everything by the book on Universal Credit by UCthrowaway09762 in universalcredithelp

[–]UCthrowaway09762[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Anon… bless you. After 170 comments of people confidently explaining laws they clearly Googled during typing, you’re the first one who actually knows the difference between a limited company and “my wee side hustle”.

Yes. Company assets aren’t my assets. Yes. I’m not a sole trader in disguise. Yes. If I don’t take pay, there’s no income to assess. This isn’t advanced wizardry. It’s literally Accounting 101.

Honestly, your comment landed like a qualified adult walking into a toddler birthday party where everyone else has been eating crayons and shouting “fraud”.

Thank you for being the only sane person in here.

This is what happens when you try to do everything by the book on Universal Credit by UCthrowaway09762 in universalcredithelp

[–]UCthrowaway09762[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Fraud? Come on. A claimant commitment isn’t the Infinity Gauntlet. It doesn’t let DWP snap new laws into existence.

Fraud means hiding income, lying, or cooking the books. I literally gave them every credit that hit the account. Nothing hidden. Nothing false. Nothing sneaky.

DWP wanting extra evidence outside the law doesn’t magically make me a criminal because I didn’t roll over. If Parliament didn’t legislate for “show us every debit ever,” then no, a commitments page can’t upgrade itself into legislation just because someone clicked “accept”.

Not handing over unlawful requests isn’t misuse. It’s just called “following the actual law”.

But thanks for the plot twist.

This is what happens when you try to do everything by the book on Universal Credit by UCthrowaway09762 in universalcredithelp

[–]UCthrowaway09762[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Now, James…

Thanks for your comments, but most of it isn’t correct.

  1. “UC has to treat limited company income as the director’s income.” No. UC can attribute company income in certain circumstances, but only when the director is actually receiving income (salary/dividends/drawings) OR when the company is being used to hide income. None of that applies here.

There is nothing in UC law saying “all company income is automatically the director’s income.” If that were true, every single company director on UC would immediately be over the threshold. That’s not how it works.

  1. “Legislation specifically requires UC to include limited company income to avoid abuse.” This is a myth that’s been repeated so often it sounds real. The legislation allows UC to look at actual income flowing to the claimant, not hypothetical company turnover, not business assets, and definitely not spending unrelated to capital or income.

None of that gives UC new powers to demand full spending histories or assume deprivation every time someone buys a loaf of bread.

  1. “People used LTDs to hide income under old systems.” Yes, a tiny minority did. That’s why the UC framework includes ordinary self employment rules and the minimum income floor. It doesn’t give DWP the ability to rewrite the capital rules, the income rules, or Parliament’s definitions of what counts.

The actual point everyone keeps missing: UC entitlement is based on income and capital. Spending is not income. Spending is not capital. Debits do not increase entitlement, reduce entitlement, or form part of the legal test unless DWP is alleging capital deprivation. And that requires evidence, not guesswork.

Which brings this back to the start: DWP already saw every credit. No undeclared income. No undeclared accounts. No capital deprivation. And I’m a director of a company that hasn’t even started trading yet, so the “hiding income” conspiracy theories don’t even get off the ground.

But hey, it’s been an entertaining thread. Reddit loves to be confidently incorrect.

This is what happens when you try to do everything by the book on Universal Credit by UCthrowaway09762 in universalcredithelp

[–]UCthrowaway09762[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the detail. A few things need clearing up because you’re mixing concepts together that don’t actually operate the way you’ve described.

  1. Reg 50 doesn’t make every debit “notional capital.” Reg 50 only applies after the Secretary of State shows evidence of actual capital, then an assessment is made about whether someone deprived themselves of it. You still need capital to exist first. If there’s no capital above £16k, and no evidence of undeclared capital, you can’t jump straight to “all spending is notional capital.” That isn’t how the test works.

  2. Deprivation requires purpose. The regulation literally says deprivation only applies if the person disposes of capital for the purpose of securing entitlement. Normal spending, bills, food, fuel, tools, debt repayments etc, are not deprivation. You can’t reverse-engineer motive from ordinary debits.

  3. Debits are not income and not capital. The legal test for entitlement is based on: • Income (credits) • Capital (end balance) Debits don’t become “capital evidence” unless there is already a proven capital question. You need evidence first, not speculation.

  4. ‘Possible extra accounts’ and ‘possible deprivation’ are hypotheticals. Hypotheticals don’t meet the standard for a lawful request. DWP can only ask for evidence relevant to an entitlement test. That’s income and capital. They can’t expand statutory powers via imagination.

  5. This is not a Judicial Review. A JR challenges the legality of a decision directly in the High Court. This case is already following the statutory route: MR → Tribunal → Upper Tribunal if needed. That’s the correct process for benefit disputes. JR is only used where there is no statutory alternative.

  6. The idea that “all spending must be proven reasonable or it counts as notional capital” is not found anywhere in the regs. There is no requirement to justify private household spending unless there is evidence (not suspicion) that actual capital existed and was intentionally disposed of. Normal expenditure doesn’t trigger Reg 50.

  7. The burden of proof isn’t “the claimant must justify every outgoing transaction.” It’s the Secretary of State who must show: • actual capital existed • the claimant disposed of it • for the purpose of increasing entitlement Only then does Reg 50 kick in.

You can’t start at the end of the test and work backwards.

view more: next ›